CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ascot House - Oldbury
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes, appropriate recruitment checks and enough staff on duty.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and understood people's needs. People were involved in their care, supported with health appointments and encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, had privacy and were encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people well. The home had a process for responding to complaints and concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was managed consistently and had effective systems for checking care plans, risk assessments and medicine records. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Ascot House - Oldbury was rated Good in all five areas, with inspectors finding safe, kind and personalised care.
This was a planned inspection on 16 January 2019. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, staff and the registered manager. They checked three care records, two staff files, medicines processes, training, recruitment and management records.
The home supported up to six people with learning disabilities or a mental health diagnosis. Four people were living there during the visit. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were given as prescribed, staffing was sufficient and staff had suitable training.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home remained Good from the previous inspection in January 2016, with no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient and medicines were given safely and as prescribed.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with compassion, privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw positive, caring interactions during the visit.
“We saw caring interactions between people and staff throughout our visit.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to do things for themselves, including preparing snacks and drinks and carrying out domestic chores.
“People's choices and independence were respected and promoted.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance and audit systems were in place for monitoring service provision.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes in risk shared with staff?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough trained staff when someone is absent?
- 03How are medicines checked and recorded, and what happens if a dose is missed or recorded incorrectly?
- 04How are people involved in updating their care plans and choosing their daily activities?
- 05How is feedback from people, relatives and staff turned into improvements?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; four people were living at the home and inspectors reviewed three people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ascot House - Oldbury
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Sandwell
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,190 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.